Plaintiffs shoe manufacturers have obtained default judgment against a number of individuals and companies in China based on trademark violation. To enforce the judgment, the plaintiffs sent post-judgment subpoenas to several Chinese banks with branches in New York. The Chinese banks moved to quash the subpoena.
The court found that it had specific jurisdiction over the banks, which have a branch in New York and transact business out of it. The court also found, inter alia, that the separate entity rule did not bar the exercise of jurisdiction as to the subpoena.
For practitioners of post-judgment enforcement, this is quite a judgment. For all the talks that US courts are pulling back on asserting jurisdiction on extraterritorial affairs, there is an end-run on the presumption of extraterritoriality by, for example, reaching China through Chinese bank branches in New York.
Post a Comment